Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Since the words shahid and martyr are interchangable an alternate translation might be "I present this victory to the soul of brother Yassir Arafat and to our other martyrs," instead of: "I present this victory to the soul of brother martyr Yassir Arafat and to our shahids,"

I've removed the following text:

Recently, Abbas was the target of a al-Fatah attack. During a celebration where he figured, a large number of masked males appeared. They appearently fired in the air. It is unclear to me, but the incident ended with the death of two bodyguards. Abbas himself had been wisked away before the firing started. Later, Abbas has recented the incident as an assasination attempt, but rather as a clash between two security forces that had gone awry. Palestinian security officials later supported this view.

It's badly written, it refers to "me," and requires more information in terms of accuracy to be placed in the article. --Prospero 04:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So did she say that, or is she quoting him? If she said it, why does it belong on this page? If he said it, why is she being quoted? -- Zoe

I think he is referred to as Abbas more often. Is that his official name? I suggest a move. Jiang 01:34 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A friend points out that he is called "Mahmoud Abbas" in the American press, and "Abu Mazen" everywhere else. Anyone have a more complete story on where his name comes from? This might help us decide what the "official" page should be. Graft 19:25, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas is his actual name, while "Abu Mazen" is an adopted nom-de-guerre. I'm not sure what "Abu" means, but it's very common as a nom-de-guerre for Palestinians -- Yassir Arafat, for example, adopted the name Abu Amr, though he rarely uses it anymore, and there are quite a few other examples. --Delirium 19:29, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Here in Germany he's called "Mahmud Abbas" as well. But, as I have heard, arabians tend to like changing their names all the time. A friend of mine, an attorney, told me how difficult that makes prosecuting arabian terrorists (or suspects) here, because it's also fairly common among rightous people... By the way, as far as I know "abu" means father. --malbi

For the record, this was originally at [[Abu Mazen]], but I moved it several weeks ago. --Jiang 06:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In his letter to Yitzhak Rabin, dated May 4, 1994 (which led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority), Arafat wrote (article 4):

When Chairman Arafat enters the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, he will use the title 'Chairman (Ra'ees in Arabic) of the Palestinian Authority' or 'Chairman of the PLO', and will not use the title 'President of Palestine.'

Since then, Arafats official title in all international documents has been "Chairman" - either of the PLO or the PA. The PA was established, and its structure was formed, as part of an international agreement. Arafat can call himself whatever he likes on his website - his official title will still be "Chairman of the PA".

Do you have a link to the basic document of the PA? The letter by Rabin does not carry any legal standing, I believe. Is this an issue like with the FYROM, where the international community does not recognize the legal/domestic name? --Jiang 08:43, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could not find the document you requested. However, here is an example of an international statement from 2000 which Arafat is a side to, and which referrs to him as "Palestinian Authority Chairman": [1].

This is perhaps somewhat like the issue with FYROM - except that Macedonia is an independent state (this is not disputed) - and therefore has more autonomy in deciding on its own name, whereas the PA is merely an "authority" - a product of international agreements - and is bound more strictly by those agreements.

The fact that the term "President of the PA" is never used in any official document to which the US (or Israel) is a side to - even when the PA is a side to the document - serves as an evidence that this title is not internationally recognized.

Since this seems to be a disputed issue (I did find some non-Palestinian references to "President Arafat", alongside references to Arafat as "Chairman of the PA") - I suggest that we remove his title completely from this article, and explain the situation in the Yasser Arafat article.

Arafat is called president by the European Union, by every member of the Union and by many diplomats.

Re Abu Mazen, the name is not a nom-de-guerre. It is a real name, meaning father of Mazen. Many Arabs change their name on the birth of their first son to Abu 'name of son' . Irish people followed a similar custom but linked to the father's name. Conor Ó Brien, meant Conor, son of Brien. Conor's son Sorley would be called Sorley Ó Connor, his son Padraic in turn would be called Padraic MacSorley, etc. However the tradition of changing names to link with a father's name has long since died out, but words like Ó (O'), Mc (Mac), etc symbolise that old link. Calling Abu Mazen a nom-de-guerre is misleading, as it is a real name adopted following Arab custom. A nom-de-guerre is a different thing entirely. Some Arab leaders do have Abu - xxx nom-de-guerres, but Mazen isn't one of them. FearÉIREANN 18:55, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Delirium, why add "However, Daoud is the sole source for these charges, and they have not been corroborated by others." What does this convey to the reader? OneVoice 22:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it indicates that they may or may not be true. If multiple people had said the same thing, or it came from a neutral source, that'd be one thing. But it comes from a single source who is known to have a rivalry with the PA, so that makes it somewhat suspect. --Delirium 23:23, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...the timing does not fit well. Daoud published in 1999 (could have been written earlier) Abbas had a promient role then that would cause Daoud to target him for a false allegation? What role? OneVoice 12:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps it'd be better if we could find a reply from Abbas and replace the "not corroborated by others" line with something like "Abbas denies the charges, saying '...'" (since I assume he denies the charges)? I'll do some searching in a bit. The main thing I objected to was presenting Daoud's charges as unopposed fact, when they're not generally considered such (I don't think even the US accepted them, or at least it didn't say much about them). --Delirium 21:48, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

The issue was a key factor in the collapse of peace talks in 2000. President Bush last April publicly embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's position that refugees be allowed into any new Palestinian state but not into Israel.

"We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends," Abbas told a session of parliament held to mourn Arafat, who died of an undisclosed illness in France on Nov. 11. [2]

I've heard a rumor about Mahmoud Abbas that he's a Baha'i, this should be researched and confirmed, if so, we should add him to the list of Baha'is. :) Any comments? --Agari 14:36, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've heard that this was a rumour put about by Mossad in order to discredit him, and I recall people posting (on usenet Baha'i sites I regularly read) articles where he denies this. So, no he shouldn't be added to lists of Baha'is. I can try to look up those posts if anyone is interested. PaulHammond 22:20, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Abu Mazen has repeatedly denied this, but it has repeatedly been used against him (e.g. by Osama Bin Laden and the ex Shin Bet chief)

I think this is an interesting question and relevant to Abu Mazen so it should be included. Any comments? User:AndrewRT62.7.148.208 14:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Two points to settle the matter:

1) One of the twelve fundamental principles of the Bahá'í Faith is obedience to government and non-involvement in politics. This would mean that, if Abu Mazen were Baha'i, he has spent the last fifty years of his life blatantly disregarding one of the fundamental precepts of his prophet and church.

2) Not only is the Universal House of Justice (that is, the physical center of the Baha'i faith), located in Haifa, Israel, but the Baha'i have never challenged the establishment of Israel. Abu Mazen was nominally opposed to its existence until 1974.

Of course, Abu Mazen could have had an interest in Baha'i theology... but he would never have been accepted as active member in the church because of his political activities. End of story. --(Mingus ah um 01:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

No, not end of story, how many politicians do you know who have defied their religous beliefs? are you telling me ever baha'i, christian, muslim jew etc follow all aspects of their religion? Hardly. Furthermore, Hamas recognise Mahmoud Abbas as a Baha'i so there you go. (Truth 06 08:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Never heard about this, very interesting if true, though it would put the Bahai faith into "some shame" (though it's not their fault) because like said they're real respectful of Israel and of other beliefs, and are peaceful people, while Abu Mazen atleast throughout most of his life wasn't. Amoruso 15:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not a Baha'i. The rumours were started by those who were opposed to him and wanted to discredit him (much the same way people in Iran are discredited by starting rumours that they are Baha'is). Mahmoud Abbas has stated that he's a practising Muslim. See [3][4][5][6]. Regards, -- Jeff3000 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"He has been charged with involvement in terrorism" - has he actually been charged in a court of law, or merely accused? If it is a mere accusation, the wording should make that clear. Does anyone know more detail about this? --Smoddy 14:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recently, Abbas was the target of a al-Fatah attack. During a celebration where he figured, a large number of masked males appeared. They appearently fired in the air. It is unclear to me, but the incident ended with the death of two bodyguards. Abbas himself had been wisked away before the firing started. Later, Abbas has recented the incident as an assasination attempt, but rather as a clash between two security forces that had gone awry. Palestinian security officials later supported this view.

It's badly written, it refers to "me," and requires more information in terms of accuracy to be placed in the article. --Prospero 04:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So did she say that, or is she quoting him? If she said it, why does it belong on this page? If he said it, why is she being quoted? -- Zoe

I think he is referred to as Abbas more often. Is that his official name? I suggest a move. Jiang 01:34 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A friend points out that he is called "Mahmoud Abbas" in the American press, and "Abu Mazen" everywhere else. Anyone have a more complete story on where his name comes from? This might help us decide what the "official" page should be. Graft 19:25, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas is his actual name, while "Abu Mazen" is an adopted nom-de-guerre. I'm not sure what "Abu" means, but it's very common as a nom-de-guerre for Palestinians -- Yassir Arafat, for example, adopted the name Abu Amr, though he rarely uses it anymore, and there are quite a few other examples. --Delirium 19:29, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Here in Germany he's called "Mahmud Abbas" as well. But, as I have heard, arabians tend to like changing their names all the time. A friend of mine, an attorney, told me how difficult that makes prosecuting arabian terrorists (or suspects) here, because it's also fairly common among rightous people... By the way, as far as I know "abu" means father. --malbi

For the record, this was originally at [[Abu Mazen]], but I moved it several weeks ago. --Jiang 06:14, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In his letter to Yitzhak Rabin, dated May 4, 1994 (which led to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority), Arafat wrote (article 4):

When Chairman Arafat enters the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area, he will use the title 'Chairman (Ra'ees in Arabic) of the Palestinian Authority' or 'Chairman of the PLO', and will not use the title 'President of Palestine.'

Since then, Arafats official title in all international documents has been "Chairman" - either of the PLO or the PA. The PA was established, and its structure was formed, as part of an international agreement. Arafat can call himself whatever he likes on his website - his official title will still be "Chairman of the PA".

Do you have a link to the basic document of the PA? The letter by Rabin does not carry any legal standing, I believe. Is this an issue like with the FYROM, where the international community does not recognize the legal/domestic name? --Jiang 08:43, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I could not find the document you requested. However, here is an example of an international statement from 2000 which Arafat is a side to, and which referrs to him as "Palestinian Authority Chairman": [7].

This is perhaps somewhat like the issue with FYROM - except that Macedonia is an independent state (this is not disputed) - and therefore has more autonomy in deciding on its own name, whereas the PA is merely an "authority" - a product of international agreements - and is bound more strictly by those agreements.

The fact that the term "President of the PA" is never used in any official document to which the US (or Israel) is a side to - even when the PA is a side to the document - serves as an evidence that this title is not internationally recognized.

Since this seems to be a disputed issue (I did find some non-Palestinian references to "President Arafat", alongside references to Arafat as "Chairman of the PA") - I suggest that we remove his title completely from this article, and explain the situation in the Yasser Arafat article.

Arafat is called president by the European Union, by every member of the Union and by many diplomats.

Re Abu Mazen, the name is not a nom-de-guerre. It is a real name, meaning father of Mazen. Many Arabs change their name on the birth of their first son to Abu 'name of son' . Irish people followed a similar custom but linked to the father's name. Conor Ó Brien, meant Conor, son of Brien. Conor's son Sorley would be called Sorley Ó Connor, his son Padraic in turn would be called Padraic MacSorley, etc. However the tradition of changing names to link with a father's name has long since died out, but words like Ó (O'), Mc (Mac), etc symbolise that old link. Calling Abu Mazen a nom-de-guerre is misleading, as it is a real name adopted following Arab custom. A nom-de-guerre is a different thing entirely. Some Arab leaders do have Abu - xxx nom-de-guerres, but Mazen isn't one of them. FearÉIREANN 18:55, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Delirium, why add "However, Daoud is the sole source for these charges, and they have not been corroborated by others." What does this convey to the reader? OneVoice 22:10, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, it indicates that they may or may not be true. If multiple people had said the same thing, or it came from a neutral source, that'd be one thing. But it comes from a single source who is known to have a rivalry with the PA, so that makes it somewhat suspect. --Delirium 23:23, Feb 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...the timing does not fit well. Daoud published in 1999 (could have been written earlier) Abbas had a promient role then that would cause Daoud to target him for a false allegation? What role? OneVoice 12:27, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. Perhaps it'd be better if we could find a reply from Abbas and replace the "not corroborated by others" line with something like "Abbas denies the charges, saying '...'" (since I assume he denies the charges)? I'll do some searching in a bit. The main thing I objected to was presenting Daoud's charges as unopposed fact, when they're not generally considered such (I don't think even the US accepted them, or at least it didn't say much about them). --Delirium 21:48, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

The issue was a key factor in the collapse of peace talks in 2000. President Bush last April publicly embraced Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's position that refugees be allowed into any new Palestinian state but not into Israel.

"We promise that we will not rest until the right of return of our people is achieved and the tragedy of our diaspora ends," Abbas told a session of parliament held to mourn Arafat, who died of an undisclosed illness in France on Nov. 11. [8]

Analysts in accurately predicted that these remarks might have harmed his prospects in the then-upcoming election, perhaps neglecting the popular impact of his physical and political embrace of representatives of Hamas, a terrorist group.

Which analyst predicted that? How does the writer know what considerations may or may not have influenced the voting of electors? Who says Hamas are terrorists, and who says Mazen supports them politically, despite his calls for moderation?

Anyway, this article will need a rewrite since Abu Mazen appear to have become the President of the PA today 1PaulHammond 22:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The following statements seem suspicious and need sources or explanations:

"However, he refused to disarm Palestinian militants and use force to act against groups that Israel, the United States, and the European Union designated as "terrorist organizations"."

"Upon acceptance, confusion over his position suddenly emerged after statements made to the crowd chanting "a million shahids". Abbas stated, "I present this victory to the soul of brother martyr Yassir Arafat and to our shahids," then promised to protect the "strugglers" wanted by Israel for "terrorist" attacks, and that "the little jihad has ended and now the big jihad is beginning"."

The last paragraph is taking the naughty bits and interpreting them in a non-objective way even if it has a source. It's a shame, because the rest of the article is close to feature status (IMHO). I would remove it myself but I don't want to start an edit war. Palestine-info 06:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Satiany should not remove "unreferenced" quotes just because they disagree with his point of view; Wikipedia intends to be NPOV. One of my "unreferenced" quotes had a reference CLEARLY STATED after it. Interestingly, Satiany left in a pro-Abbas quote that had NO references. Nevertheless, I have added a reference to the unferenced quote before readding both quotes.

Hmm. I think that you need to do things to include that quote. First, you need to source it to the book not to an extremely biased website. It's an unreliable source. You need to acquire the book really and see that Abbas did actually say it. I don't doubt he did -- holocaust denial is an ugly and unfortunate part of many Arabs' understanding of the world -- but I think you need to more carefully source. Second, you need to recognise that the accusation of holocaust denial is given prominence earlier in the article and that to then quote him saying exactly that in a "Quotes" section -- which would normally be memorable things that people have said (like the jihad thing, maybe), rather than pointscoring quotes from either side -- rather unbalances the article. Were you to put the reference in the earlier section, that would be much more NPOV. I won't be watching this page and I'm not interested in edit warring but I hope you will give my reasons for removing the quote due consideration. Happy editing, guys.Grace Note 03:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Mahmoud Abbas: "His doctoral thesis later became a book, The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, which, following his appointment as Palestinian Prime Minister in 2003, was heavily criticized as an example of Holocaust denial. In his book, Abbas raised doubts that gas chambers were used for the extermination of Jews, and suggested that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was "less than a million." "

Therefore, this person should be in the category Anti-Semitism, no?--68.211.197.252 06:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. In my mind, two questions need to be resolved before he should be labeled: 1) When was his thesis written?; and, 2) Is there any indication that he has changed his tune since then? You may ask: why do these questions matter? Well... Thirty years ago, Abbas agreed to accept the existence of Israel... Perhaps he has publicly agreed to accept the tragic reality of the Holocaust as well. If he has, I think his essay should be forgiven but not forgotten.

Well, here's a quote from him that's in the article: "The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it." I'd say that's pretty unambiguous. --Delirium 20:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Him thinking that the Holocaust is terrible has nothing to do with him also believing that 'Zionists inflated Holocaust victim counts'. Holocaust denial encompasses revision of the number of victims as well, and you have not shown that he has retracted that position. What is strange about that? TewfikTalk 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You claim that he is currently a Holocaust denier. If that is true, please cite a reliable source corroborating that claim. For example, does the Anti-Defamation League consider him a Holocaust denier? Does anyone except some Wikipedia editors accuse him of, at the present time, being a Holocaust denier? Your personal conclusions do not constitute sufficient evidence under WP:BLP to include a potentially libelous claim in the article. --Delirium 08:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Raul Hilberg a Holocaust denier for tossing an (low) estimate of 5.1 million around? I too find Abbas's first statement both repugnant and factually inaccurate, but I think it cheapens the seriousness of the charge to collapse Abbas's stance with (say) Ahmadinejad's. To me, Holocaust denial is denial of the historicity of the implementation of the "Final Solution," from Wannsee to Auschwitz. Billbrock 04:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just glanced at the Finkelstein interview on Democracy Now cited above. I'll retract my remark re Abbas--denial of the camps would make one a Holocaust denier.... Billbrock 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Abu Mazen the name of the palestinian kamikaze warrior who rammed the US Marine HQ in Beirut 1983 with a bomb truck killing circa 200 gringo soldiers? 195.70.32.136 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this would only mean that both Mahmoud Abbas and said individual both named their first-born son Mazen (Abu Mazen = "Father of Mazen"). Such coincidences are common in the Middle East. For more information, check Arabic name. --(Mingus ah um 01:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

I'm not too happy with this sentence in the introduction. It seems to be trying to reflect common assumptions in the Anglo-saxon media. I would prefer to see it removed or replaced by something more factual and sourced. Any comments? Palmiro | Talk 19:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I took a quick shot at revising the sentence, but it could still use some work. Here's the original sentence: His reputation in the West is that of a moderating influence in the Palestinian Authority.

...and here's the new one: With Hamas now in control of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas is frequently portrayed as the face of Palestinian moderation.

Perhaps we should also include something about the internal turmoil within Fatah (that is, compare Abbas to some the more radical popular leaders within his own political movement). --(Mingus ah um 02:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC))

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or step on any toes here, but it just occurred to me that even though there is only ONE mention of U.S. President George W. Bush in the entire article, there are THREE PHOTOS OF HIM here! I am not trying to be anti-Bush or pro-anyone-else here, but I think this somewhat underscores the subtle but ever-present U.S. bias in English Wikipedia. Abbas has met a slew of other world leaders, and talked peace with a lot of them... to photographically portray Bush as being at the forefront of this process is misleading and unnecessary. 68.12.110.233 (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says that Hamas considers Abbas' term to have ended on January 9. Does any one dispute that Abbas' term has ended on January 9, and if so, what are their views? That it ends on some other day (which one?), or that it extends indefinitely until the election of his successor (which may not happen for quite a while)? CuriousOliver (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found some references that elaborate on the situation and edited the article accordingly. I find it interesting that so far no one responded to my question, suggesting that most find Abbas already irrelevant. CuriousOliver (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we need to distinguish between his elected term and his self-appointed term. I don't know if that'll end the slow edit war over the infobox, but that's my latest thought. -- Kendrick7talk 05:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it really a war? I tried to reform it as much as possible to show the disputed claims a unbiased as I could. I think we shouldn't say put 9 January 2009 as his term end because he is still in office. Even if some consider it illegal, no one can argue that he's definitely still executing his powers as president. We have several current world leaders who's terms have expired but continue as president/prime minister. I think we need to add more emphasis to the fact his term's ended in the article itself, both in a detailed section and the introductory paragraph. However, until he actually does leave office, he remains (at least in the West Bank and the eyes of the West and its allies) the incumbent president. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not really a war: I only meant "edit war" as a term of art. To your points: Abbas doesn't still execute his powers over half the country (I know the West Bank looks bigger than Gaza on the map, but it is ~75% under Israeli military control, not Abbas's, so I think saying "half" is more or less a wash). If there was a royal scepter involved or something this would be an easier call -- whoever had it would be the guy in charge -- but this is a legal question and as far as I can tell the Supreme Court is out to lunch here. No surprise -- they are so low key I can't find our article about them. Israel rounded up and arrested a fair portion of the parliament so that body is paralyzed as well. But in the meantime, I don't believe Wikipedia should coddle dictators as a general rule (insomuchas Abbas is only still president because he has dictated it to be so). -- Kendrick7talk 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But he has the recognition. And Duwaik certainly isn't executing any powers at all, but he's still considered president as well. And as much as I agree that dictators are abhorrent, it isn't the our job to say that. The encyclopedia is supposed to just state the facts as unbiased as we can, which comes with a large sense of detachment. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have recognition under the law. I'm not sure how you are defining "powers" and in any case, former Speaker Duwaik's term expires next month anyway -- it's not like parliament is sending him any bills to sign in the meantime. Palestine has no army or navy. I agree that we should not take a POV here, but declaring Abbas as "incumbent" is doing just that. If you want to say that he is the incumbent self-appointed president since 9 January I suppose that's about right. -- Kendrick7talk 06:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that positioning both as incumbents and explaining the situation is NPOV enough. I think we should get other opinions on this, though. Otherwise, someone may come through the page a week or so from now and say that the two of us don't know what we're talking about. And I meant recognition by other governments in that they only deal with Fatah. Although, I'm largely unaware of Hamas' international support base. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Third party opinion via RfC - Let's try and stick with reality, even if it sucks! Ask most people (except Hamas) who's the head of the PA and they'll say Abbas. I'm guessing he's also the guy who shows up the Arab League, the UN and whatnot. The lead makes it clear about how his term was renewed, the infobox should mark him as incumbent, which for better or worse is true. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It says in the first line that its a (somestrange word), with a link to a wikipedia page that explains it. Like someone calling himself Father of Our Country. ( Martin | talk • contribs 04:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC))

Holocaust denial doesn't just consist of saying that no Jews at all died. It also includes minimizing the number of people killed. Andjam (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This comes up probably once or twice a year since 2004 or so. The consensus years ago was not to add the category, because derogatory categories (like "holocaust denier" or "criminal" or "terrorist" or "murderer") should only be added for clear, unequivocal cases, where the vast majority of 3rd-party reliable sources would support inclusion and few to no sources dispute the inclusion. The article itself, of course, can provide a discussion in ways that categories, as black/white entities, can't. As for whether he should be in Category:Historians of the Holocaust, that's a closer call, but as he isn't known as a historian, I'd probably say no; I would reserve that category for full-time historians who are known for their work in the field of Holocaust history, not everyone who has ever written anything on the subject. --Delirium (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did this consensus arise? Was it on this talk page, or somewhere else? Andjam (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is from the Wikipedia page on the 1972 Munich massacre. It should be added to fill the large 3 decade gap in the abbas biography:

Abu Daoud, now in his seventies, writes that funds for Munich were provided by Mahmoud Abbas. Though he claims he didn’t know what the money was being spent for, longtime Fatah official Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, was responsible for the financing of the Munich attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.236.83.144 (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WND is not a reliable source and repeatedly reinserting it, while removing information about the incident from an actual reliable source, is not acceptable in a BLP. nableezy - 01:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Other sources currently cited in the article which do not meet the criteria for statement of fact in BLP:

The last date proposed for the next presidential elections (June 28th) is about to pass by without notice... is it correct from now on to call Abass a de facto president? Againme (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Jaweed Al-Ghussein former elected Chairman of the Palestine National Fund (PNF) was kidnapped from Abu Dhabi with the collusion of Mahmoud Abbas and illegally held hostage for 16 months in Gaza. Al Ghussein Minister of Justice Freh Abu Mediane resigned and publicly protested at this illegal incarceration and it was denounced by the late Haider Abdel Shafi as a blatant abuse of power. Al Ghussein had been calling for transparency accountability and rule of law. The case was taken up by the Palestinian commission on Citizens Rights (PCCR) were Attorney General Soranai conceded that there was no legitimate reason for Al-Ghusseins house arrest. The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary detention appointed a Special Rapporteur on torture requested the immediate release of Al-Ghussein and placed him in their highest category Mounting international pressure and the mediation of Canon Andrew White, Special envoy of the middle East to Lord George Carey Archbishop of Canterbury.

Watching his speech at UN beginning, I took a quick look here and can see this article needs updating, among other things... CarolMooreDC 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"I will never allow a single Israeli to live among us on Palestinian land"[edit]

This quote, which has been making the rounds at pro-Israel rallies and all over pro-Israel blogs and websites (albeit in different words depending on the source) is currently sourced to Arutz Sheva a.k.a. Israel National News. A7 is a far-right news agency run by religious West Bank settlers, its target audience being the same. I wouldn't regard A7 as a "reliable source". By contrast, I would regard as reliable anything from Ha'aretz, the Jerusalem Post, Maariv, etc. -- Yedioth Ahronoth is somewhere between the Post and A7 in my view. I've been looking for the original source for this quote for a while. Allegedly, Abbas said something along the lines of the attributed quote in Cairo on July 28 2010, according to the A7 article and to an opinion piece at the Jewish Chronicle, though Caroline Glick, in an op-ed for the Jerusalem Post, has him saying it at an Arab League summit in Qatar on May 28 2011. Geoffrey Alderman, in his Jewish Chronicle column, sources the quote to Wafa, the official PA news agency, but says that Wafa removed it, and I can't find it on the English-language Wafa either. Alderman also claims that he "understand[s] that, in any case, some Arabic newspapers, such as Al-Quds" also quoted Abbas saying something similar, but there is no evidence of this given either. In my opinion, this is looking more and more like a fabricated quote, but my opinion about its authenticity doesn't have any bearing on whether or not it should be in this Wikipedia article. I am concerned about the lack of a reliable source, however. I'd appreciate some help in tracing the claim that Abbas said something to the effect that, in his vision, a Palestinian state should not allow Jews to live in it. If an RS can't be found, I'm inclined to remove the quote from this article. Conversely, if people believe that Arutz Sheva meets the requirements of a "reliable source", then we should discuss that here. BostonFenian (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a single section on this article or on Abbas about his work head of Palestinian Authority for the Palestinians. The only sections about his work as Palestinian leader focus on relations with Israel and foreign relations. Abbas also has to manage a population - his job doesn't just deal with the peace process or foreign relations. I strongly believe we should work together on adding such a section, and otherwise creating articles for the information or adding to existing articles (many articles on these subjects haven't been created yet, which takes time, and some just don't seem to fit in another article or to create one). The section can include:

Improvements he made for Palestinians

Fatah-Hamas reconcilation (briefly, I believe there is another article on it)

Support for Abbas vs Hamas vs Barghouti in the polls

Criticism by Palestinians

Handling of crises such as financial crisis, fuel crisis

Corruption, threats against other Palestinians

Prison sentences, law enforcement (such as a recent crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank)

Nothing controversial about this, you should feel free to expand on the subject. Be BOLD! I don't have much interest in this article in particular as I've set my sights elsewhere for the time being, but I might lend a hand sometime in the future. Just to note, there should also be a bit about the recent proposal set in the Doha Agreement that Abbas head the proposed technocrat-based government in addition to the presidency until new parliamentary and presidential elections are held. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm going to give it some more time to give people a chance to respond, and then I'll start working on it gradually (and anyone else who wants to help). If anyone wants to add more info or items we should include, as Al Ameer did, feel free to do so. What I listed is just a general guideline of what such a section can include. --Activism1234 23:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, that last edit you made is a BLP violation as it distorts what Abbas actually said. The full interview is here (uploaded by the TV station, not a copyvio). The editing that MEMRI performed so blatantly takes what Abbas said out of context that I cannot believe that anybody can, in good faith, claim what was written faithfully represents what he said. Yes, he did say he will not recognize a "Jewish state". He also said "I recognize Israel", and he said that it isnt his business what Israel calls itself and that Netanyahu is free to say what he wishes. I translated the relevant portion of the interview (from around the 7 minute mark to 9:13), and I'll post it when I get home. But that edit should be reverted, and I may do so later tonight. nableezy - 17:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the translation, without the highly selective editing brought to us by MEMRI:

Mona: But what I know is that Netanyahu's speach at the UN, which came right after your speech, did not have any indication of any hope or even probability for any negotiotion. I also know that you have left right after you finished your speech, and you did not wait for his speech, and you even left New York a few hours after that.

Abbas: I heard the speach

Mona: The whole world has heard it, Abu Mazen [Abbas]. And everything in his speech did not indicate that Israel will fulfill any of its promises to you or to any international agreements that they signed. The man used one expression, and said it openly: "the Jewish state, and I emphasize the Jewish state". He said "we offer peace, and they reject it. 63 years", instead of occupation, he says "63 years of offering peace". He accused everyone, Palestinians and the rest of the world, as being the enemies of peace. And he said that Israel is the only one that seeks peace. This is a speech that does not indicate any hope or indication of negotations.

Abbas (8:10): First, to remove from the table, the story of the Jewish state. The Jewish state was proposed to me only two years ago. And they discussed this with me in every place and every occasion I go to. They ask me, are there Jews or not? They also asked me what is my opinion on the "Jewish state". And I said my opinion, and I am repeating here. I will not accept the idea of a Jewish state, or a state that is Jewish.

Mona: He [Netanyahu] said it twice.

Abbas: This is my opinion, but he can say what he wants to. But I will not accept it. I recognize the state of Israel, and this recognition is based on the mutual exchange between Arafat and Rabin, and God bless both their souls. Other than this, I have nothing to say. I will not accept more than recognizing the state of Israel. And they have to recognize the PLO, the only representative of the Palestinian people. And that is enough. And they say this on more than one occasion, the Palestinian state, and some times they deny it, and some times they acknowledge it.

The interview was reported by WP:RS so it make it notable if there other translations that WP:RS report you welcome to add it to the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesnt, in any way, address the BLP violation of taking a phrase completely out of context to give it a more radical meaning that it actually has. This isnt a game of acronyms prepended by WP:. He said, immediately following the out of context quote you chose to highlight, I recognize the state of Israel. He later says, effectively, that Netanyahu can call it a Jewish state if he wants to, but that he recognizes Israel and that as far as is necessary. He has also said, on other occasions, that it isnt the issue of Israel calling itself a "Jewish state" has nothing to do with him. You cant take out of context quotes to distort a persons stated views. Thats what your edit did. nableezy - 07:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't distort anything I report only what WP:RS report with proper attribution according per WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just gave you the translation of, and a link to, the actual interview. Are you really going to say that the snippet quoted adequately expresses his views on the subject? nableezy - 07:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think cases like this are interesting and probably worth taking to BLPN because they seem to be within scope of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, Section 4 "Refraining from Certain Activities" which sets out what is not allowed (see here). One of those things is "Engaging in False Statements" i.e. we are obliged to carefully avoid deceiving readers. It's not always clear how to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But even in Nableezy translation he said that he will not recognize so I don't understand what the problem really?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the issue is that while sources are free to use the half-truth propaganda technique, we are not because we are writing an encyclopedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Could you please explain what is the half truth?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you see the difference between the following 2 pieces of information in terms of the extent of the facts, Abbas' truth, they both contain ?

MEMRI - "I will never recognize the Jewishness of the state, or a 'Jewish state.'"

nableezy's transcript - "I will not accept the idea of a Jewish state, or a state that is Jewish." + "I recognize the state of Israel, and this recognition is based on the mutual exchange between Arafat and Rabin" + "I will not accept more than recognizing the state of Israel."

One in effect says, "I will not recognize X as an ethnoreligious based state", while the other says "I will not recognize X as an ethnoreligious based state but I do recognize X as a sovereign state as mutually agreed". They are quite different in terms of the information the convey about Abbas' view. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We can add this to the article and link youtube interview as user translation are allowed too.Then the problem could be solved?

Could you also translate the part about Gilad Shalit? Because the sections have two parts.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should I spend my time on that? That should be removed on the basis that it has nothing to do with his "relations with Israel". nableezy - 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kidnapping Israeli soldiers has nothing to do with "relations with Israel"?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Mahmoud Abbas "kidnapped" any soldiers. He said it was a good thing that Hamas captured the soldier, but that doesnt change that armed resistance will not liberate Palestine as the Palestinians do not have the capabilities to compete with Israel in strength of arms. In that section of the interview (and this is from memory, so not word-for-word) he is remarking about how the Palestinian cannot win their freedom with force. He said something like We are always with peaceful, popular resistance. But the armed resistance will not accomplish our goals. I can translate it later, I just dont see the point of spending the time necessary to do that when it shouldnt even be a part of the article. nableezy - 16:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be removed as a relatively straight forward distortion of what Abbas actually said. But there are so many problems with that section that I dont even know where to start. Half of it has nothing to do with his relations with Israel, and the other half is based on sources that dont actually discuss his relations with Israel. Using secondary sources to write an article doesnt just mean finding a newspaper that carried a quote, it means finding sources that discuss what you are writing about. The thought of fixing the problems honestly isnt all that appealing to me, given the rather obvious obstacles that will invariably be thrown up. nableezy - 04:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, not getting into the actual BLP stuff but the other aspects of "Relations with Israel," stuff like "On 16 January 2006, Abbas said that he would not run for office again at the end of his current term" definitely aren't relevant to the section, and should be moved (not deleted) to another section (either existing or a new one). I don't find those types of edits to be controversial and don't expect they will be (but other types of edits will definitely be controversial). --Activism1234 05:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: Whether you want to do this or not is up to you, if I get a chance I'd do as much as I can, since stuff like that really is a mess and makes it tough to find what you need in the article. But I can see, just based on how so many edits get talk discussions and back-and-forth arguments, how other types of edits would be considered controversial and objected to. --Activism1234 05:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How on earth does adding links to places that copy MEMRI's claim make that claim more reliable? It is ridiculous. Nableezy's case that this is BLP violation is watertight. And this is yet another reason why MEMRI should not be treated as a reliable source. What Abbas said is exactly the same thing as he has been saying for several years, for example here. Deleting the clear distinction between "Jewish State" and "Israel" is the sort of trick MEMRI gets up to, but we have no excuse. Zerotalk 13:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The material was restored on the basis that MEMRI is an RS which misses the point. I removed it again. It can stay out until BLP concerns are addressed properly. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, editors are reminded of WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content: When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. nableezy - 19:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you accept in that he willing to "recognize Israel but not the its Jewish character" based on Haaretz source--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, because that implies that Israel has a "Jewish character". nableezy - 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And he isnt "willing" to recognize Israel, he has recognized Israel. nableezy - 20:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

UN non-member state status for Palestine. Vote expected in November 2012[edit]

I don't see this 2012 United Nations info linked below discussed in the article. Nor do I see the 2011 efforts by Abbas at the UN to get full membership discussed in the article. See: Palestine 194.

Not done: I don't believe this recognition is notable enough to be included in the article. There are a great many famous people out there who have been made honorary members of organizations, honorary citizens of their hometowns or other cities, etc, etc. All such articles would be quickly overloaded. --ElHef(Meep?) 03:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

President of State of Palestine is not a real position as there is not currently a state of Palestine. I don't think Wiki represents (intentionally) the spread of misleading information. I have made the edit two times and someone has continuously tried to start a debate which is not what the article is for. Avi1231 (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Content isn't going to be changed based on what you personally believe is real/unreal/existent/nonexistent. Perhaps you should read the State of Palestine article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I am new to editing wikipedia, and up to now have limited myself to copy-editing, but I was wondering what the procedure is to actively add to articles. One thing I have noticed is that in the "Relations with Israel" sub-heading, there are several one-sentence paragraphs that do not seem to indicate why they are relevant to the overall narrative of Abbas's relationship with Israel. The sentence/paragraph, "On 25 May, Abbas gave Hamas a ten-day deadline to accept the 1967 ceasefire lines," is an especially good example of this. Since I'm not that knowledgable on the subject matter, I'm hesitant to add things myself, but I was wondering if anyone else felt like this needed some clarification and if they would be willing to make these changes. If people think it's a valid addition but don't want to do it themselves, I am happy to do some research and clarify a little. Michael.holper628 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

In May, Averroes1 removed a paragraph from here as it was about Muhammad Zaidan (Abu Abbas or Muhammad Abbas). Now Averysoda has restored a part about that. Don't you see it is about another person who was Palestinian and called Muhammad Abbas? What did you think was solved by keeping (though rewording one word) that Mahmoud Abbas "In 1985, he temporarily went into hiding in Yugoslavia upon avoiding international justice mechanisms in Rome, Italy" but removing "which arose from his alleged involvement with the Achille Lauro hijacking"? --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If the source was talking about Muhammad Zaidan, I made a mistake. I didn't know that. Some Arabic war names look alike.--Averysoda (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If you look in the article, it is clear who it is about. Why return sensitive text in a WP:BLP in a hotly disputed topic like Israel and Palestine when you are not sure? It is also remarkable that you didn't revert yourself now that you have gotten another answer that this is a confusion with another Abbas. --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely the opening statement "Mahmoud Abbas is the President of the State of Palestine" is grossly propagandist? Firstly because there is no "state of Palestine," secondly because he was elected in 2005 as President of the PA, not "president of Palestine," and thirdly because since 2009 he has had no mandate to be president of anything. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As head of the PLO he also holds the office of President of the state declared in 1988 and recognized as a state by well over 100 other states. nableezy - 15:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Palestine" is not a sovereign state and its institutions of government exist only by courtesy of the Olso Accords, which created the position of "President of the PA", not "President of Palestine." Abbas was elected to that position in 2005, and his term ended in 2009. He is therefore at best a de facto President of the PA. The article should state the facts, not propaganda. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The incident about Ahmed Manasra is a bit of historical trivia that fails WP:UNDUE by a large margin. Abbas had his facts wrong and Bibi scored a propaganda point from it. It had no lasting significance whatever and does not belong in this article. Zerotalk 00:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Compare the report of the disreputable Arutz 7 settler newspaper and the report of the reputable news organization Jewish Telegraphic News, and the report of the international news agency Associated Press. A7 does not even mention the explanation that Abbas gave for rejecting Olmert's offer. Abbas said that Olmert refused to give him a copy of the map, but A7 wrote "Olmert presented him with a map". This is yet one more proof that A7 is unreliable, to add to the dozens of previous proofs. Zerotalk 08:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

So what? Both accounts (the JTA report is based on the AP one, no need to list it as if it was a separate story) agree on the basic news elements of the story - Olmert made an unprecedented offer, Abbas rejected it, and this is the first time Abbas admits it. The AP chose to highlight Abbas' excuse- that he wasn't given a copy of the map to keep, while A7 chose to emphasis the "out of hand" rejection (which exposes the excuse for what it was - an excuse). The stories do not contradict each other, and there's no reason not to include both sources, with both aspects that were ignored, respectively in each story. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not about what they chose to emphasize. Arutz Sheva didn't mention at all why Abbas rejected the offer. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw that and just by looking at Arutz Sheva's title, you know something is missing if you have read reports from other media sources about this. Reading the article makes it clear they are leaving out Abbas' explanation and his explanation has actually been known for years.

There is no understandable reason to use this source when there are several good sources writing about Ehud Olmert's and Mahmoud Abbas' interview. Of course, if you want to make it look like the Palestinians are not interested in peace, like this settler newspaper does, then the article is perfect. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You're funny. The AP report you cite so approvingly says this is the first time Abbas has said that - but you think it was supposedly " been known for years.". So either you don;t know what you are talking about, or the AP story is not quite as credible as you make it to be. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that unlike Arutz Sheva, good media sources like AP gives the very relevant explanation from Mahmoud Abbas. Yes, it has been known for years, though it is in the news once again after the recent interview with Olmert and Abbas about their peace negotiations. So yes, AP is very credible and in a whole other class than the settler newspaper, and what I said is true. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You think it's relevant, others (e.g A7) think it is an irrelevant excuse, since he admitted he rejected it "out of hand" (Something that the AP story omits). I don;t know if you are right or A7 is right, what's the problem with including the complete story? And no, it can't be both that you are right, and Abbas's story has been known for years, and at the same time the AP story which said this is the first time he's given that explanation is credible. It's one or the other. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not a choice between what I and Arutz Sheva think is relevant. They choose to ignore Abbas' explanation, which credible media organizations like AP don't. Combining one worthless source and one good source doesn't give the "complete story".

I really don't care about your personal opinions. AP is a serious organization unlike the settler newspaper Arutz Sheva and this is another clear example of that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your reasoning here is circular. There are two stories: AP and A7. They agree on the basic facts, but A7 omits one detail (Abbas' excuse for why he rejected the offer) and AP omits another detail (that before offering the excuse, Abbas admitted he rejected the offer "out of hand") . You use the difference as "proof" that AP is reliable and A7 is not, when the argument could be flipped around to show AP is not reliable. And none of this has "my opinion" in it. Three's no reason to use both sources to get the full picture. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You say so because Abbas' explanation is just an "excuse" for you, which is more clearly seen at your comment above about "which exposes the excuse for what it was - an excuse". --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)\

Here is the coverage of the story from Council on Foreign Relations- [12], which is essentially the same as the A7 story (emphasis on the rejection out of hand, no mention of the 'wasn't given the map' excuse) . So what now? Is CoFR also an unreliable source? Or maybe it's time to admit that no source is unbiased - including AP - and if we want to get the full picture, we need to use both? That's Wikipedia policy , by the way. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 04:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said above, it wasn't about what AP and Arutz Sheva chose to "emphasize" but rather that Abbas' explanation was omitted in A7's article. There are hundreds of articles about the interview and I'm not arguing about using other sources, just that A7 is unreliable and there is no reason to include them (especially when there are many other sources about the negotiations). By the way, several years ago Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians made a counter-offer to Olmert. --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As the lead for the Ramallah article says, "Ramallah ... is a Palestinian city in the central West Bank." Wikipedia's voice should not say that it is in the State of Palestine in Abbas's infobox. I intend on restoring the words "West Bank" unless somebody comes up with a reasonable argument why I should not. --GHcool (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just modified one external link on Mahmoud Abbas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

This is a biography of somebody, it is not a repository for anything that is recently in the news. If and when this one speech becomes an important part of Mr Abbas' life then we should include it. Otherwise we should avoid adding the flavor of the day to the article. nableezy - 16:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you got the wrong idea here. Wikipedia isn't about what is important in Abbas' life, but what reliable sources say about him.

I agree that there is always the danger of recentism when writing about living people. However, as you can see at WP:RECENTISM, that is not a bad thing, and many interesting section and articles have come out of it.

Removing this paragraph is too extreme a measure IMHO. I think that one paragraph is fine for the moment. Perhaps in a few years it will turn out to be worth only one sentence, perhaps not, but removing it altogether is not the correct path of action, in my opinion. A {{Recentism}} tag can be added, if authors so like. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a biography, right? This isnt an article on Abbas' views on Rabbis, wells, poisoning, well-poisoning, or blood libel, right? You would have a single speech he gave in a political career spanning some 60 years now take up about 10% of this article? Every little thing that gets picked up in the news does not belong in a biography. If this turns out to be an important event then we can always include it. But as of now, it is a news coverage blip that doesnt merit any mention at all. nableezy - 21:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Wrong again. An article about a politician should definitely include a section on his views, a section on controversies, and the like. Debresser (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Please try to stick to the conversation which is, should every news article about a politician be added to their articles? The answer is no. Sepsis II (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. That is not the issue. That is not an issue at all, as a matter of fact. The issue is much more specific. Should the statement made by Abbas in front of the EU parliament be part of this article? I think it should, as being part of his views or as being a controversy related to him. I am not blind to recentism arguments, but think this is part of the process of writing a balanced article. Debresser (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It should not be included because not every news article about a politician should be added to their articles. Don't call editors stupid or assholes, even indirectly. Sepsis II (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It might not be the issue to you, it very obviously is the issue to others. So, try not to be stupid and assume you know how others think. nableezy - 14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I will call stupid any editor who tries do deflect the conversation from the issue to try and made a point. The issue is not general, because there is no disagreement on the general issue. The only disagreement is regarding this specific case, and attempts to deflect from it are only disruptive, and will simply be archived as not pertaining to the discussion. Debresser (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get off deciding to hide an editors response to you? Don't do that again, it's incredibly disrespectful to hide away somebody's response to you as unrelated. You don't set the terms of discussion here, sorry. You want to ignore something that's fine, calling them stupid and collapsing their comments is not however something you can do, or at least it's not something you can do without being reverted and if it is repeated reported. nableezy - 21:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It is equally disrespectful to try to move the discussion into unimportant directions, claiming the issue is what it isn't. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw this listed at DRN and, though I work there I don't want to become involved in a drawn-out mediation of this issue. I will, however, give you what amounts to a neutral Third Opinion on the matter. Like many things here, I don't think that there's a black or white answer to this one. I do think that the length and detail at which this matter was treated in its most recent version gives it undue weight in an article about the entire life of Abbas, especially when set off in its own section and having a "further information" link. It also gives me some concern about original research by implication, i.e. being included to invite readers to draw conclusions about Abbas which aren't expressly stated in the sources, though that concern is somewhat cured by the inclusion of the blood libel statement. In short, if this was restricted to one or, at the most, two sentences and included at the foot of some other section (most likely the "Relations with Israel" section) with no further information link, I probably wouldn't have much objection to it. Here's a suggestion, "On June 26, 2016, Abbas retracted as unfounded a statement he had made on June 23 in a speech before the European Parliament that rabbis in Israel were calling on the Israeli government to poison the wells of Palestinians. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Abbas' statement spread a blood libel. (Add one or two sources here.)" Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Not opposed to that. I dont think it merits coverage but thats fine by me. nableezy - 03:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

That is acceptable to me as well. Debresser (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need for the second sentence, the first is enough. Sepsis II (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the attempt at moderation failed, and since the information is well sourced, relevant, notable, etc., I have restored it. The claim that it is undue is incorrect, since it is only a rather short paragraph, not 10% of the article at all without the sources. The claim that it is recentism is not a sufficient reason to remove text, apart from the fact that I believe it to be incorrect. Rather the information sheds light on certain controversial opinions of this politician. Attempts to censor Wikipedia should not be condoned. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The one outside opinion offered agreed this was undue weight. But you get to just say thats incorrect and ignore it? Im reverting the revert that you know full well you dont have consensus for and what several editors have faulted as a policy violation. nableezy - 23:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You have reverted, and will be reverted again. The only outside opinion suggested that something a bit shorter might be appropriate. Your main objection is recentism, which opinion was not shared by that outside opinion, and in any case is not in itself a reason to remove information (especially well-sourced). You need more than the concurring opinions of two editors who want to censor this article about their beloved leader to remove sourced and relevant information. Feel free to tag is as undue and get consensus for the need to shorten it, or even shorten it yourself, but you are not allowed to remove it altogether. That is against guidelines, see WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Debresser (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not allowed? Funny. You dont make the rules here, and WP:ONUS is fairly clear on who is not allowed to revert to include disputed material. My beloved leader? Are you off your meds or something? I dont even like Abbas, Im not Palestinian, and I dont live in the Palestinian territories. He is not my, beloved, or leader. You are required to get consensus for disputed material, not the other way around. Revert again and to AE we go. 3-1 opposed to your massively undue separate section with 10% of an article dedicated to one speech, and everybody else is the problem. Get off it. nableezy - 17:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

When I offer a third opinion, I generally just walk away from any further discussion and absolutely do not edit the article so as to avoid being seen as partisan. But things here seem to have fallen apart after everyone agreed on a solution. I will, therefore, be happy to implement the solution I suggested above if it will end this. I'll have to go back to pick out the sources — one will be the New York Times source, but I will have to decide whether another and, if so, which one is needed — but I will only do this if you will both agree here to allow me to do so and stop the back and forth. No discussion, please, just an "I agree" or "I disagree" from each of you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. At least for the time being. With no promise that I won't add more information or details if sources will continue to discuss this information and its ramifications. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Not with the above comment. Debresser has a habit of attempting to sneak an edit in and then claiming that it has consensus a day later. If Debresser agrees to leave it as you suggested Im fine, but with the above comment no from me. nableezy - 17:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that Nableezy is not willing to reach a compromise based on his own lies. Debresser (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Lies? Exactly that happened here, where you claimed an edit you made two days past was consensus and any change to it violated consensus. You routinely do that, sneak an edit in and when it is objected to claim it has consensus. You can call that a lie if you want, I just call it the unpleasurable and mundane experience of working with you. Im fine with the compromise, but if you intend to just use that to restore your mess of undue section as your comment makes apparent then no I dont support it. None of that is a lie. Toodles, nableezy - 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to join this pissing contest, but I'll aim straight at TransporterMan's proposal and suggest a modification. To recall, it was: "On June 26, 2016, Abbas retracted as unfounded a statement he had made on June 23 in a speech before the European Parliament that rabbis in Israel were calling on the Israeli government to poison the wells of Palestinians. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Abbas' statement spread a blood libel." I comment: (1) The second sentence doesn't add anything, as everyone knows that Netanyahu will say that. (2) The first sentence leaves readers to infer that Abbas made up the claim himself, but actually he was repeating a false press report. There is no reason to doubt that Abbas retracted the statement as soon as he knew it was not true. (Note that a counterclaim that it wasn't true doesn't count as a disproof since such counterclaims would be made whether it was true or not.) So I propose text as follows, with one or two high-quality references: "On June 23, 2016, Abbas repeated to the European Parliament a false press report that rabbis in Israel were calling for Palestinian wells to be poisoned. Abbas retracted the statement three days later, acknowledging that the claim was not true and stating that he 'didn't intend to do harm to Judaism or to offend Jewish people around the world'." Zerotalk 04:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the text proposed by TransporterMan without change. 1. There is reason to assume Abbas will not retract the statement. Many reasons actually. 2. Netanyahu's reaction is notable. 3. I see no reason to suppose that "everyone knows that Netanyahu will say that". 4. Even if it were the reaction to expect, that is not an argument not to have the statement. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Since Abbas did retract the statement quite soon, your second point makes no sense at all. Zerotalk 14:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How so? Perhaps you meant my first point? In any case, that leaves quite a few other points. :) Debresser (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How so? There is reason to think he wont (future tense) retract a statement he already has (past tense) retracted? You dont see how that doesnt make sense? Im fine with Zero's text. nableezy - 15:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It meant that there were valid reasons to think he wouldn't. That is quite simple.

Nableezy, please undo your implementation of Zero's proposal, which does not have consensus. I for one think TransporterMan's proposal is by far superior, for the reasons I stated above.

You must really stop trying to enforce your point of view on this article and in general. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Read that back to yourself. Your edit was opposed by every person in the section that commented. You restored it anyway. So your edit against consensus should be allowed, but mine, that has unanimous support, should not be. Try to be a bit more self-aware. nableezy - 15:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Please re-read my original statement. Let me reiterate: I think that in the abstract that the incident is too minor to mention (i.e. UNDUE) and creates original research by implication by implying that Abbas is a bad or, at the very least, incompetent person. (About which I neither express nor imply an opinion, pro or con.) The fact that someone else of note, even if a knee-jerk entirely-foreseeable reaction (though that analysis also seems OR to me), has drawn that conclusion cures that problem and elevates the importance of the incident enough to — barely, in my opinion, but enough — to also cure the undue weight issue. For me to participate further here weakens my position of neutrality. I've said what I have to say, take it or leave it, and I'm out of here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It cures the undue weight issue when it is given a couple of sentences and not an entire section. The edit I referred to Debresser restoring was the 10% of the article one. nableezy - 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you repeat that lie? Only with all the sources it is 9.4% in hypertext, but the text itself as you read it in the article is just a small paragraph of a few sentences, amounting to 3.3% of the text of this article by word and character count. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not a lie, and again, nobody else has supported your version. Nobody. nableezy - 17:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It was proposed by an independent editor, and you for one agreed to it yourself![13]Debresser (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

That wasnt your version. The version that you asked me to to revert to. That isnt all that honest, now is it? nableezy - 19:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It is the present version, the one I too agreed with. What is not honest about that? Debresser (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasnt the version you had reverted to here and was what you asked me to undo my edit of here, which contained the gem You must really stop trying to enforce your point of view on this article and in general which is exactly and precisely what you were guilty of with this edit here. You complained about somebody editing without consensus, when that is exactly what you did, you complained about enforcing somebody supposedly enforcing their point of view, when that is exactly what you did except you did it with not one person supporting your edit and several opposing it. Which is why I said read that back to yourself and the edit I referenced, as it was your most recent at the time, when I wrote Your edit was opposed by every person in the section that commented. You restored it anyway. It is dishonest of you to now pretend that the sequence of events was different and that I was opposing an edit I agreed to, all while calling me a liar. I would say that you lied, but I feel that word is being bandied about too much here, and Id like to dial this back down and avoid you repeating those oh so false personal attacks against me. nableezy - 18:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The version by TransporterMan has the virtues of having been proposed by somebody who is completely neutral, includes all the important information, covers all sides, and was agreed upon by both of us. The only reason it was not implemented was because the attempt to reach a solution at WP:DRN was unsuccessful. Zero's version came much later, and has serious shortcomings as specified above. Also, I am not sure, read: I doubt, that Drsmoo's support means he supports Zero's version to the exclusion of TransporterMan's. The attempt to push it through over TransporterMan's smells of POV. Please also notice that either of these version is a compromise, since I think the original text should be kept, and you think nothing should be kept. I have shown my willingness to pursue my point of view at noticeboards, while you have torpedoed such discussion or simply not commented. If editors will try to undo the present version, I will resume my efforts to reinstate the original, longer version. So the question is really, do we want a compromise, or not? Debresser (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, this is what I mean with dishonesty. I did not implement Zero's suggestion to the exclusion of the compromise that you agreed to and then ignored and then again reverted to when you knew you had no consensus for it. I modified that version, not the compromise that you decided not to honor. So please, get off it with the POV and pretending that this was an issue of the version proposed by TransporterMan or by Zero. It was an issue with the material that you edit-warred in without anything resembling anybody agreeing with you. As it stands now, nobody has reverted your inclusion of Netanyahu's statement, even if several of us dont think it should be included (you reverted to include that without consensus also), so what exactly do you want now? I no longer care what efforts you undertake, but if you hypocritically accuse others of edit-warring against consensus to suit their POV when that is exactly and precisely what you have done and are now threatening to do again, well then we can take that up if and when it happens. nableezy - 22:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I will be just as happy as you to leave this subject be. I though my previous post made that clear. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, do you have any idea what Wikipedia's policy on living persons is? Why are you restoring sources such as an editorial in American Thinker or some random person on The Commentator (I dont even know what that site is supposed to be)? Are you even a little bit familiar with the quality of those sources? nableezy - 23:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

And if you will pay attention to the articles you are editing you can see that you for some mystical reason inserted disjointedly in the middle of the material that covers properly what youre trying to include. It says his thesis (1982 not 1983) said at most 800k or so Jews died. Why are inserting crap editorials in crap publications to say exactly the same thing except in a crappier way? nableezy - 23:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There were 3 sources: http://nationalinterest.org/, The American Thinker and thecommentator.com. The American Thinker seems to have an editorial board. The other two websites seem to be one or two-man initiatives, so I agree they are not the best of sources.

If he says 800k that means he denies 6m. So what is wrong with that statement?

The following impeccable source quotes the book as saying "only a few hundred thousand".[14]

The following source quotes his book "the number of Jewish victims numbered in the hundreds of thousands".[15] I am not sure how reliable they are, but I think that for a simple quote they can be relied on.

So why do you say he said 800k?

The statement that according to his dissertation the Holocaust was a fantasy and a lie, and that only 890k Jews were killed can be reliable sourced as well.[16] And this book by historian and journalist Jeremy Havardi.[17]

In short, there are good sources, and I will add them, and you will stop censoring this article. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It already covered genius. What dont you get about that? It already says what you want it to say, just not so hysterically that it repeats itself every two sentences. Why do you insist on making articles utter crap? And if you want to make directives, try this one on for size. WP:ONUS. You need consensus to add disputed material, and if you continue to violate that, in a BLP of all places, I will seek sanctions against you. nableezy - 17:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I can not be blamed if you removed sourced material without good reason. That is disruption. I comply with the onus by providing sources and using neutral language. Good luck in seeking sanctions, if you must. It am waiting for the day they will boomerang against you and your POV will finally be condemned by this community. Debresser (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Click on the link and read WP:ONUS. Then try to consider whether or not your comment has absolutely anything to do with it. My POV, lol. Sure. nableezy - 17:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You can play your games in ARBPIA, but BLP is more serious, keep away from any questionable sources, opinion pieces, etc. Sepsis II (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of calling me "genius" or accusing me of "playing games", please be so kind to state precisely what sources you think should be removed and what statements have been repeated and where. Out of hand reverts will be reported. WP:DISCUSS, don't WP:EDITWAR. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Have you even read the section now? Do you see how badly it is written? In your zeal to add every crap source you can find, have you noticed the opening line is The Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement 1933 – 1945 is the title of Mahmoud Abbas' CandSc thesis and the paragraph you added repeats The thesis of the 1982 doctoral dissertation of Mahmoud Abbas, was "The Secret Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement"., and that the second paragraph said In 2013, he reasserted the veracity of the contents of his thesis which stated "the Zionist movement had ties with the Nazis". and now that is repeated with Abbas has defended the position that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis to perpetrate it? Do you like having encyclopedia articles resemble hysterical polemics written by people with grade school level English? I mean seriously, read that section and tell me if your unmitigated urge to add every single garbage webpage you can find to it is at all misplaced. nableezy - 15:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

So merge those two sentences that contain repetitive information. Don't just remove a whole bunch of sentences with information you don't like. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

lol. How about you dont keep adding repeated material without any regard for the rules of the English language? That sound like a better plan than asking me to clean up your mess? nableezy - 15:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it is not my mess. Secondly, because that is what a good editor does: fix, not remove. Debresser (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

When you restore something that somebody who is banned from editing does, you take responsibility for it. Ill not take lessons on being a "good editor" from somebody who edit-wars to restore crap. nableezy - 17:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser, can you please for the love of whatever you hold dear look at what it is you are restoring. Algeminer is a garbage source, and on top of that it is an opinion piece by two writers with seemingly no record of expertise on the topics of Abbas, or the Holocaust, or really anything. Why exactly are you restoring that? And as far as the NY Times, it wasnt removed. It was moved to a sentence where it actually supports what its cited for. It was moved to the end of According to the Anti-Defamation League, Abbas said in the mid 1990s, when asked about the book, "When I wrote 'The Other Side,' we were at war with Israel," and that "today I would not have made such remarks." The reason for that is your edit now has us misrepresenting the source. You have it as a source for a direct quote, that being "it seems that the interest of the Zionist movement, however, is to inflate this figure [of Holocaust deaths] so that their gains will be greater. This led them to emphasize this figure [six million] in order to gain the solidarity of international public opinion with Zionism. Many scholars have debated the figure of six million and reached stunning conclusions—fixing the number of Jewish victims at only a few hundred thousand." and it does not contain this quote. Do you understand that when a footnote is added to the end of a quote that this means that this quote is in the footnote? Because now our article claims that the NY Times has a quote that it does not have. In high school they would call this sloppy sourcing. In college academic dishonesty potentially meriting expulsion. I actually went through the sources, I didnt as you seem to have done, just copy pasted from another article without looking if the cited sources actually support the material. You want to correct your errors? Or do I need to add misrepresenting sources in a BLP to the AE? nableezy - 16:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I would love it if you would add that to the WP:AE, because it would give me even more bad faith accusations from you, which I can use per WP:BOOMERANG against you.

I had seen the sources before, but had not checked there precise content before my last edit. I am perfectly willing to take your word for it, that they should be moved, and you can make the edit with my blessing.

The Algemeiner Journal is a newspaper existing over 40 years. If you have a problem with it as a reliable source, please raise the issue at WP:RS/N, and I promise I will abide by whatever decision they reach. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

That does not make it a reliable source. And your carelessness in restoring sources that do not support the material cited in a BLP is not a bad faith accusation, it is an established fact. nableezy - 17:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I kept the Wiesenthal source even though it is superfluous as the sentence is already cited to another source. The rest I reverted. And to be clear, Im removing it on the basis of WP:BLP and Ill remind you of WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content. nableezy - 17:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Abbas wrote that the Nazis killed "only a few hundred thousand" Jews can be sourced to numerous books and articles. I just added an academic book by an expert on the topic, published by the Oxford University Press. That should hopefully end this debate about "unreliable sources" Epson Salts (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, because you restored an opinion piece by two writers that have no expertise on the subject and did so violating BLPs prohibition on restoring deleted material without consensus. What dont you get about this? nableezy - 15:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What I don't get is why, after being shown beyond any doubt that Abbas wrote this - as sourced to an academic book by the Oxford University Press, written by an academic expert on the topic of genocide denial and its legal implications, you would still argue to remove that sentence from the article. Does the fact that it was also reported by two non-experts lessen the veracity of the Oxford source? Epson Salts (talk)

Umm, have I asked you to remove that sentence? No, I asked you to remove the deficient source. The one you added is fine, and I dont have a problem with it staying. I dont think its necessary as the material is already well-covered, but I get that some people want to emphasize every last tidbit about this, except when it isnt sufficiently negative about Abbas. nableezy - 16:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I wrote on my page, we disagree that it is a "poor source", but I don't feel strongly about it. You can remove that source if you like. Epson Salts (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Good. But generally it should be a principle, esp. on WP:BIO articles, to have a highbar for RS. Once you find such a source, the proper thing is to remove the inferior source, rather than tell another editor they may remove it with your permission. This is just a simple courtesy, and is collegial.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well the proper thing is when something is challenged it shouldnt just be returned to the article. In fact, in this case, that is Wikipedia policy (WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content). As far as whether or not this is a poor source, how are the current and a former chairman of Religious Zionists of America reliable sources for this material? Look at the opinion piece, it is filled with hysterics. It is argumentative and mostly used to attack the Washington Post for being duped, it argues, by Abbas. This doesnt belong in any serious article on Abbas, and using it smacks of desperation to include every negative tidbit one can find through google. Which is why, incidentally, it was first added. nableezy - 17:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

ZeroNishidani added a new paragraph sourced to Gilbert Achcar. First of all, it says that Israel "support Abu Mazen against Yasser Arafat", but the quote says " preferred Abbas over Arafat". Isn't there a mistake here? Secondly, I think this paragraph doesn't really contribute anything. In addition, the quote is only a suggestion/question, and is therefore probably not a good source for what it comes to state. Per all the pertaining policies, including WP:BRD, and the recent suggestion at WP:AE that major changes should preferably be discussed beforehand, I will remove this small paragraph till such time as all these issues have been addressed. That said, I feel the need to add that I really appreciated ZeroNishidani's edit. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Listen. You have no automatic revert rights over everything several other editors might add to this page. Your complaint is ridiculous. (a) I am not User:Zero0000. (b)if you object to 'support' because the source says 'preferred' that gives an experienced editor no right to remove a whole passage. One simply readjusts the paraphrase to reflect that choice of language in the source. (c) Achcar is a world-ranking authority on Arab attitudes to the Holocaust, and it is pure obstructionism to quibble over this. (d)This is not a 'major change'. It is the addition of further new material that left the existing prior text unaltered. There are no issues to address, therefore. other than changing 'support' to 'preferred to' even though that would push the paraphrase close to a copyright violation.Nishidani (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

(a) Sorry for mixing you up with Zero. I fixed that above. Please rest assured that I respect both of you. (b) Okay, let's say they mean the same. (c) I am not disputing that Gilbert Achcar is a reliable source. (d) This is an additional paragraph, which makes it more than a minor contribution.

Now please notice that you have not addressed the major issues here: 1. I think this paragraph doesn't really contribute anything. It is completely unclear what the point of this paragraph is. 2. The quote is really only a suggestion/question, and is therefore probably not a good source for anything.

I am not claiming any "automatic revert rights", nor are you, Nishidani "several other editors". You added something, I contest it should be added. There is nothing to make a fuss about, and per WP:BRD I expect you to make your point and show why you think this information should be added. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed the 'major' issues raised by your revert. The principle that a (a) impeccable academic source (b) bearing precisely on the content of the section (Mahmoud Abbas+ Holocaust) normally cannot be removed except by arguing there is something defective in it on the talk page. You are giving your personal opinion about the content, which doesn't interest me. The source, its quality, and its focused relevance to the section are not in doubt.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Contrary to your claim you have not addressed either issue, nor have I given any personal opinion. Please tune down the rhetoric and answer the questions. 1. What statement is there in the paragraph that you think is relevant? To the precise location you added it? 2. How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? Debresser (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Whats your policy reason for removing it? I removed unreliable sources and you edit warred to restore it, but here is an academic text and you remove for apparently not being negative about Abbas. What is the policy that supports your removal? nableezy - 15:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Nish, I think you can restore that material now, no policy reason was given for the removal, just a stream of consciousness masquerading as reasoned debate. nableezy - 15:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

As often stated I don't understand 1R. I made changes to the text in a copyedit, and then in a second edit added Achcar. I was tempted to immediately revert Debresser's WP:IDONTLIKEIT revert, but have refrained from doing so, assuming it would mean I would be breaking 1R. Even if it doesn't, I don't like the kind of trigger-finger happy reverts Debresser has engaged in, and prefer to restore things once I've clarify things on the talk page. Obviously this goes back, because there is no policy motivating the removal. Debresser, as to my reference to page control and you reverting many editors. You revertedUser:Sepsis II;You revertedUser:Zero0000;You revertedUser:Nableezy;You revertedmyself. Three of those editors never disregard the iron rule that relevant RS can never be removed from an article, except under two conditions, i.e. known to be inaccurate, or a patent abuse of WP:BLP. You have broken that rule. I'll put it back tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You havent made any reverts. Debresser's stonewalling doesnt really factor into it, but there is zero policy based reason on this talk page for that removal, and I for one would revert it now, but I have one revert already. The commentary piece discussed above should also be removed, but Ill take care of that later. If you dont restore this I will later today. nableezy - 16:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What Commentary piece? By the way in general I think it fair to add the well-poisoning remark, as it is, in two lines, no more. There are good grounds for thinking Abbas was duped (that's not hard to do) on this, as Richard Silverstein noted on his blog not usable unfortunately. Well-poisoning by religious settlers, whose acts do not seem to get censure from the rabbis in those communities is well-documented, and, again, sources do not make that connection, which however no doubt made Abbas susceptible to believing the report in a Turkish source. Israeli politicians thump the Holocaust drum with increasing fervor, and when Netanyahu said the Palestinians inspired the Holocaust it was duly included in his bio. The other day, Avigdor Lieberman likened a fine poem by one of the great post WW2 poets, Mahmoud Darwish, as akin to Mein Kampf, meaning he was familiar with neither. That would, if anyone cared, go into his article. I'd prefer to write an article eventually on Palestinian poets exiled, muzzled or assassinated (or put on trial for 'incitement' as is now occurring with Dareen Tatour) than plunk it onto that bio, however. Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser what is your specific policy objection to the insertion of this material? If you are basing it on BLP then Nishidani should not restore it, if you are basing it on RS then explain how it is a problem, if you are basing it on NPOV then explain how. I dont see any of that up above. Above you repeatedly reverted to include an entirely new section with shoddy sources and here you are demanding that nobody re-insert material based on an academic source directly related to the material in the section? How do you explain that? As far as your question it says that Israel "support Abu Mazen against Yasser Arafat", but the quote says " preferred Abbas over Arafat". Isn't there a mistake here?, Abu Mazen means Abbas, whats the mistake? I have no idea what the quote is only a suggestion/question, and is therefore probably not a good source for what it comes to state. means, I honestly dont understand what you are trying to say there, but if its a question of reliability of the source Gilbert Achcar is a professor at the University of London and the source in question was published by Macmillan, while not a University Press a fairly well regarded publisher in academic works. That is on its face of it a reliable source. I normally would say Nishidani shouldnt re-revert over you, but a. you repeatedly demonstrated that this the manner in which you edit this article, reverting to restore material that has actual policy objections and multiple editors disputing, and are here now demanding that the exact opposite occur, and b. you gave no indication of a policy issue with the edit. So why wouldnt Nishidani restore it? You restore actually objectionable material as a matter of habit, but Nishidani should not restore relevant material from an impeccable source? nableezy - 18:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I repeat: 1. What statement is there in the paragraph that you think is relevant? To the precise location you added it? 2. How does a question, even a suggestive one, turn into a reliable source? Debresser (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It would fit better if the entire subsection was under relations with Israel, but its relevant because it discusses Abbas's writings and its impact on the relationship he has with Israel. It's a reliable source because its by an expert in the field of international relations and published by a respected publisher. What is your policy based objection to the material? nableezy - 23:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing noteworthy about some perceived irony. Nor is the source reliable, because there is only a suggestive question. That is not academic material, that is an op-ed. This paragraph must be removed. Debresser (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a subjective viewpoint, neither here nor there. The source is reliable. If you are in doubt, ask RSN and you will be told so; it is not a 'suggestive' question, but a rhetorical question; Academics like Gilbert Achcar write academic material; you have misunderstood the meaning of an 'op-ed' -which refers to an opinion piece in a newspaper, not to a remark in a work of scholarship; see WP:RSOPINION, you failed to note that this is given with attribution, flagging it as an authority's informed view; thirdly, Nableezy rightly noted that you are altering the criteria for RS according to the convenience of the POV you introduce: when you want to hit Abbas, you think the opinion of 2 religious Zionists in Philadelphia Moshe Phillips and Benyamin Korn blogging at Algemeiner Journal is acceptable - when you see material added by a ranking mainstream global academic publisher, Macmillan, written by a world authority on the subject at hand, it becomes non-RS. That, Debresser, shows your obstructiveness is behavioural, since you shift the policy goalposts at whim, in a way that your interlocutors find bewilderingly incoherent. And, don't repeat yourself, please. Your argument has been exhaustively analysed and found to be without any policy basis.Nishidani (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability has absolutely nothing to do with the content of an article. If youd like to challenge the reliability of a source written by an expert in the field published by a respected publisher and that it is quote-unquote an op-ed then feel free to try WP:RS/N. Im sure they could use a laugh. nableezy - 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of using such bombastic phrases as "Your argument has been exhaustively analysed and found to be without any policy basis.", you could at least say the whole truth, which is "I disagree with you". Also, I didn't change any criteria. I just disagree with you regarding the reliability of a suggestion (what you call a "rhetorical question") as the source for this statement. Also, you have not explained what the point of the paragraph is, except in the most general terms. Since my objections are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you have not been able to refute them, or to show any serious consensus here, the text must go. This is also true per WP:BRD, which you fail to adhere to, choosing the path of the edit warrior. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

As Nableezy said in the section above: "Well the proper thing is when something is challenged it shouldnt (sic) just be returned to the article." I shall now delete it per the pertaining policies and guidelines, as well as the lack of a consensus, and with tacit support from Nableezy as witnessed in that statement. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been asked several times now, by Nableezy and myself to list with specific policy links, your objection. List them now. If you cannot then what you just did is reportable.BRD is not a wiki policy, and Nableezy's remark you allude to regards potentially deleterious material about a living person. So provide the policies and illustrate them. I'll remind you that you are reverting against a 2 to 1 consensus.Nishidani (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I have replied every time. My answer can be found above, multiple times. WP:BRD is a good rule to follow, as it essentially is the idea of WP:CONSENSUS, which is a Wikipedia policy. 2 against 1 is not consensus! Where editors ignore core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, no so-called "consensus" can be valid. Nableezy's remark is basically the same WP:BRD I mentioned above, and holds true not just in BLP articles. Not to mention that this article is a BLP article. Debresser (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Now is when you decide BRD is what counts?!? Now is when you decide BLP counts?!? Jeez, the lack of self-awareness on this one. nableezy - 23:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever.

You are the only person supporting the removal of that material. Two editors disagree. Patience has been exercised. You have refused to budge from your declaration:'This paragraph must be removed.' Since WP:BRD is not policy, you have WP:Consensus, which, and I am repeating what you have been told for years, that does not mean, 'where I Debresser express opposition, it must either prevail, or a compromise must be worked out, no matter if I am alone in my view.'Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Gilbert_Achcar_in_Mahmoud_Abbas. Probably the single stupidest challenge to a source I have ever seen, but there you go Debresser. Once thats affirmed as a reliable source, as it very obviously will be, Ill be reverting your edit. And any time you re-revert to restore material that you added to an article I will quote your BRD defense back to you. Lets see how long that newly found sensibility to follow that guideline lasts (oh, security barrier at West Bank barrier article, that was what 2 days ago? Wow, people change quickly, Im sure it isnt any opportunistic or cynical action here, AGF and all that). nableezy - 00:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nableezy As you can see, it is not so simple there that the statement is a reliable source for what you are trying to use it for.

@Nishidani As I said above "2 against 1 is not consensus! Where editors ignore core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, no so-called "consensus" can be valid." Debresser (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(taking a deep breath) You have cited no core policy, or, if you do, do not seem to have read them.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I fail to understand what it is you want. Do I need to quote policies to prove that on Wikipedia as a matter of policy information must be relevant, and reliably sourced? I don't think so! Debresser (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Then explain why a world authority on Arabs and the Holocaust, who mentions Abbas's attitude to the Holocaust and the way Israel regards him, is not relevant to that section of Abbas's biography dealing with his attitude to the Holocaust and Israel's relation with Abbas in that light. Is that clear, or do I have to simplify it even further?Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Because that academic, and I don't think he is a world authority by the way, didn't make a positive statement, just some suggestive question. As uninvolved editors at WP:RS/N seem to agree with me, that is not a reliable source. In addition, the statement is vague and allusive, and we really don't need it. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That isn't true, one person sort of agreed but explicitly said he wasn't speaking to reliability, one person flat out said it was reliable. Please dont distort the record. I'm returning the material as the source meets wp:rs as a work of scholarship. nableezy - 06:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Even if the source is reliable, you still need consensus to include it. I find this coatracking completely unacceptable. It is obvious that Achcar's point was about Israel, not about Abbas. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was to include it. Debresser's reverting of it without a sufficient motivation was regarded by third parties as poor form. Stepping in at this late hour to revert preemptively and just using the standard WP:COATRACK essay as a basis is not dissimilar.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When you say "the consensus" you mean you and Nableezy, yes? I don't see any "3rd parties" here saying it was poor form, but whatever. I can arrive as late as I like to the discussion, and as I explained to you several times, "coatrack" is useful shorthand which everyone (I suspect including you) understands. Anyhow, since you think it's so relevant and important, I'm going to summarize it in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I disagreed, and they never answered any of my questions, namely 1. how a suggestive question can be used as though it were a positive statement, and 2. what does this paragraph contribute to the article really? At a WP:RS/N post only two uninvolved editors replied, with one of them echoing my first concern and the second also raising some concern. Nevertheless they edit warred to push through this paragraph. My revert after more than 24 hours was used to claim I was playing with 1RR, and so my opposition was "removed", but they never answered the questions and nobody agreed with them at WP:RS. I still think that for the reasons I mentioned then and now, and because of the lack of consensus to add it, this paragraph should be removed. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting. So much for "the consensus was to include it". It's ridiculously non-encyclopedic and only tangentially related to the subject of this article. Achar's point was obviously about Israel, not labeling Abbas a "Jew hater". Should be removed, and obviously there's no consensus to include it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

That's interesting only in meaning Debresser did not understand the point made when he was sanctioned. He's dead certain he was right, and asked questions not answered. Debresser was exhaustively answered.Nishidani (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what Debresser was sanctioned for or if it's relevant here. I do know that you said "Debresser's reverting of it without a sufficient motivation was regarded by third parties as poor form", and that's apparently untrue.

Anyway, could you kindly explain why you think this stuff improves the article? Because I don't see how calling Abbas a Jew hater just to hang some silly criticism of Israel on it is doing that. Would you agree to it being summarize in the lead along the lines of "Achcar says Abbas is a Jew hater who has been used by the US and Israel"? Because that's what the text amounts to. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

No. One doesn't summarize one or two lines of a whole section in a lead. A lead summarizes the section, not a snippet. It's your perception that Achcar is using the Abbas case to 'hang some silly criticism of Israel.' Achcar stated a series of fact and left iot to readers to draw their own conclusions. You are making as suggestion we draw an inference in the lead from the source, an inference attributed to Achcar. Numerous commentators think Abbas is a stooge for Israel and the US, in any case, though this is not documented in the article as yet.Nishidani (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

He did not maIt's self-explanatory. The section, following shortly after sections on his alleged Corruption, and his Relations with Israel, deals with Abbas's works and statements about the Holocaust. In the corruption section, we have an ourtline of Jonathan Schanzer's views on how the Abbas family got rich. so have quoted in full the publisher's defense against an ensuing libel suit regarding those charges, all cited. A full 2 paragraphs. We have Efraim Sneh, cited for his view that Abbas is the most "courageous partner we have had." We have the ICG cited for the view Israeli leaders see him not as a peace partner but a nonthreatening,violence-abhorring, strategic asset. etc.

In the Holocaust section, in line with these other third party comments on Corruption, and Relations with Israel, we cite Gilbert Achcar, a world authority on the Holocaust and Arab political history remarking on Israel, Abbas and the Holocaust. It is all absolutely normal. Compare the very long section at Gilad Atzmon with its numerous external judgements about him and the issues he comments on. Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't seem to follow your point. You do not seem to be saying my summary is incorrect, just that you don't think it should be in the lead? Achcar is not "remarking on Israel, Abbas and the Holocaust". Don't be ridiculous. He's remarking on Israel and mentioning Abbas in passing (calling him a Jew hater). And what does Gilad Atzmon have to do with anything? Could you please try to focus on the issue? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote. I spend a lot of time making complex texts readable as translator and editor. I only get complaints from one or two people round here.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with Achcar's view of Abbas, I have a problem with you trying to coatrack an irrelevant issue on this article. I keep returning to the "Jew hater" bit because I know you're going to resist putting that in the article (thanks for showing you are aware of sources that could substantiate the claim, but didn't bother to put them in the article. QED). I don't really care what other issues you're having elsewhere.

To the point, of the two uninvolved editors who commented on this at RSN one said it should not be included and one said it could be included, but carefully. On this page we have two for and two against. That's no consensus to include. So barring more participation, I'm going to remove it per ONUS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion that Achcar's view is irrelevant, and you have no argument other than citing a non-policy essay. I, Nableezy and Debresser went to RSN, and while external advice was split, 1 emerged for, while Debresser found one editor with moderate support for his position. 3 to 2 for inclusion, therefore. Following that confirmation of the talk page weight of opinion, the text was confirmed and stable. You turn up, add your voice against, and then state you will remove it, per WP:ONUS. The onus was met and we arrived at a 3/2 decision to include. The idea that any piece of text, confirmed by talk page argument, and recourse to third opinions, can be cancelled by another editor wandering in, to even the numbers in the original verdict, would make havoc for intelligent editing. The proper approach is for you to reopen a discussion at RSN or ask for a third opinion. As it stands it's a matter of WP:STATUSQUO, and you shouldn't be unilaterally eliding material that, like it or not, was incorporated after extensive discussion, resulting at the time in a majority opinion for inclusion. As to your belief I'd be opposed to citing sources that assert Abbas is anti-Semitic, where did you get that from? Nishidani (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

STATUSQUO is an essay. ONUS is policy. I don't need to open a discussion at RSN since I'm not questioning the source. I understand that the idea of RS has eroded to such a degree that only rarely is it not acceptable to just pick anything someone wrote and all you need to include it is an attribution.

If you could point out where ONUS says that after a few weeks it no longer applies I will reconsider my position. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nishidani The discussion at WP:RS had only two uninvolved editors, of which one was against, and the other was in favor but with reservations. You and Nableezy are not uninvolved editors from the reliable sources noticeboard, so your 3:2 claim is bogus. Here on the talkpage your "consensus" was the two of you against me, which is hardly a broad discussion, and now it is 2:2. Add to that that nobody has answered my questions, one of which was echoed at WP:RS/N, your claim to the contrary notwithstanding. I agree, now even more than I did then, that you have no consensus to add this material. Per WP:CONSENSUS (WP:ONUS indeed), this material can and should be removed. Debresser (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ What goes into an artilce, per WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUE is always a matter of consensus among editors. The WP:RSN discussion can only decide if Achchar is a reliable source, not if the material should be included in the article. There wasn't even consensus that he's a reliable source in that discussion. Let me add my voice to those opposing its inclusion here on the grounds of WP:COATRACK. Epson Salts (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the specific policy objection to this material? Please list the policies and we will go to the noticeboards for each. Consensus does not mean obtaining the approval of obstinate editors agreement, it is determined by adheral to Wikipedia content policies. So what's the policy, since RS is settled, or if you want to re-do the RS/N we can do that. Please list the specific objections to the material? WP:CONSENSUS isnt one without content policies backing up the objection. nableezy - 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The policy is WP:ONUS (part of WP:V): "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Please read that carefully. It's so short I don't even need to highlight the relevant parts, it's all relevant. It's your argument that is not policy based. Several editors have explained quite clearly why they don't think this material belongs in this article. You can't ignore it just because you don't like the argument or the editors. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:CONSENSUS, which is fundamentally about solid argument, not about vote-stacking by the intransigent. Using any number of tags, WP:COATRACK, WP:ONUS, to overturn a text can be used by any group if they have the numbers, but has no weight, except in looking at problematical cunctatorial editing refusalism as a behavioural pattern.

The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.

That might be read as applying to both parties here, but ultimately it depends on the quality of the arguments. No arguments for the cancellation of the passage by Epson Salts, who is under examination for sockpuppetry and just reverted without any notable contribution to the talk page, is observable above. Achcar is misrepresented as saying Abbas is a "Jew hater" when he states Sadat was a Jew-hater, while Abbas is a holocaust denier. The following sentence, generic, bundles up the two, but, technically, it is your WP:SYNTH inference that Achcar is calling Abbas a Jew-hater. Nishidani (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS carefully, it is rather short reading for somebody interested in editing an encyclopedia. Yes, consensus is needed to include disputed material, but consensus is not a show of hands. Here, Ill quote a bit of it for you. Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. So, what content policy objection do you have? Explain why and I will open a noticeboard discussion for each policy you say backs up the position to remove the material. You can not just say I disagree so there is no consensus. Otherwise all that horseshit Debresser pushed into this article should likewise be removed. nableezy - 15:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Epson Salts removed it, and that makes it 2:3 in favor of removal, even without WP:ONUS and the weight of both my arguments. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is not a counting game. What specific content policy are you claiming supports the exclusion of this material? nableezy - 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Instead of repeating over and over that you don't accept the other editors' arguments (which apparently you never bother to read), why don't you just open an RfC? That's the next DR step as I'm sure you know. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I was planning on opening a discussion at each policy noticeboard that you all claim applies here. The one I can make out is WP:COATRACK, is that it? Because thats an essay, so is there any policy objection to the material? nableezy - 05:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Far be it from me to tell you what avenue of dispute resolution to pursue. Do what you want. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

1. If consensus is not a counting game then why didn't you tell Nishidani so when he wrote numbers? [18] And why did you push through your opinion when it was 2:1 and I was the one who claimed that is not a serious consensus? [19] Sorry, but you can not use an argument whenever it fits you, and ignore it when it doesn't! 2. If consensus is not a counting game, and the seriousness of the arguments and the measure in which they are based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines play a role as well, then I have two very strong arguments against inclusion, as mentioned above many times, and for sure there is no way to add that paragraph. Debresser (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Because you never raised a policy objection, just some inane argument masquerading as policy. What policy, and quote from that policy, supports your position? nableezy - 13:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There has already been a discussion at WP:RS/N, as you well know, and that discussion left us with 1 against and 1 in favor but with reservations. That already means that there is no consensus for this paragraph, and you should have removed it then, rather than ignoring that noticeboard. Please understand that you will need that all relevant noticeboards come to the conclusion that this material is fitting, because if it fails even one of them, as it clearly failed WP:RS/N, then it can't be included. So there is no need to post at any more noticeboards. I am against you going forumshopping. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I dont think you know what forumshopping means, and I cant say I really care what youre against. It very clearly did not fail RS/N, one person said flat out reliable, the other said they were not speaking against reliability. What specific policy objections are there here? List them out please. If you all cannot do that then there is no reason for the material not to be restored. nableezy - 13:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Abu Daoud, who planned the 1972 Munich massacre, where members of the Israeli team at the Munich Olympic Games were taken hostage, and which ended in the murder of eleven Israeli athletes and coaches as well as a West German policeman, wrote that funds for the operation were provided by Abbas, though without knowledge of the money's intended purpose.[1]

Though he didn't know what the money was being spent for, longtime Fatah official Mahmoud Abbas, a.k.a. Abu Mazen, was responsible for the financing of the Munich attack. Abu Mazen could not be reached for comment regarding Abu Daoud's allegation. After Oslo in 1993, Abu Mazen went to the White House Rose Garden for a photo op with Arafat, President Bill Clinton and Israel's Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres. "Do you think that ... would have been possible if the Israelis had known that Abu Mazen was the financier of our operation?" Abu Daoud writes. "I doubt it." Today the Bush Administration seeks a Palestinian negotiating partner "uncompromised by terror," yet last year Abu Mazen met in Washington with Secretary of State Colin Powell.

So we have a sportswriter attributing 'responsibility' for the financing of the Munich Attack, while not knowing that the funds he supplied were being used to that end. This apparently comes from Abu Daoud's memoirs. One is obliged to assume Wolff had read the French version of Abu Daoud's book (Abou Daoud with Gilles du Jonchay, Palestine: De Jérusalem à Munich, Paris: Anne Carrière, 1999, which was said to be in press through Arcade Books in New York, but I can find no trace of an English version). Wolff's article's assertion was recycled in a reliable source format: Jonathan Schanzer, State of Failure: Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and the Unmaking of the Palestinian State, Macmillan, 2013 p.95, who writes

Years later, Mohammed Daoud Oudeh (Abu Daoud) the mastermind of the Munich Massacre, suggested that although Abbas did not know what the money was being spent on, he was responsible, in part, for raising funds that financed the Munich Massacre.

Since we have meme circulation again (it's the norm in these articles and books) some further work is required here, since the evident innuendo being made is that Abbas bears 'responsibility' for something he knew nothing about. Perhaps, if he can spare the time, our I/P source meister User:Zero0000 can illuminate this. In the meantime, I have allowed the bare bones of the report to remain, as given by Schwantzer, but the elaboration on the Munich Massacre has been taken out because it has no bearing on Abbas's political career or life (at least from these sources) Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to specify your sources and say why they are more reliable than what is used now. I'll help with one source for 1935: [20]. Zerotalk 03:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually the given source says "1935" (without date I think but I only see a snippet) and it was 1935 here until changed by an anon without explanation. I'm putting it back. Zerotalk 04:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Toggling, as this looks like it's been answered. Re-open if there are pending issues. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 18:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is high time to add information on the Abbas's expressed goal that no Jews, civilian or otherwise, would be permitted to live in the future Palestinian state he envisions [21]. Sadly I see this relevant information missing in the article.--Paul Keller (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not the source to quote, in any case. He said Israelis ('"In a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli -- civilian or soldier -- on our lands'),-soldiers and settlers, not 'Jews'. That on the face of it suggests:'If you want to stay in areas that become Palestine, you must accept Palestinian citizenship, laws and authority,' just as Palestinians have to in Israel. I see this is being spun across the net, reviving a remark in 2013, connecting it to Nazi jargon about Germany being judenfrei. What the purpose of this sudden memory recall is in recent developments is up for speculation. The Palestinian Authority under Abbas and his predecessor has regularly conferred their passport and citizenship-identity on many Jews who have applied for it, among them Daniel Barenboim, Ilan Halevi and Uri Davis, the last 2 serving on the PLO executive. No states accept extraterritorial enclaves of another state's citizens and military (save Guantanamo) in their midst. It's a standard international principle, and has nothing to do with ethnic enmity, anti-Semitism or whatever. They don't have laws like this. Binjamin Netanyahu considers all Arabs to be 'savage/predatory beasts (hayot teref That's not anti-semitic of course.Nishidani (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jew or Israeli, it's all the same: the real apartheid state would be Palestine! Israel has millions of Arabs, citizens or otherwise. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

We are required to read texts according to what they say, not in terms of our beliefs about what they might really be saying.Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course. An Israeli-free Palestine would not be apartheid? Or racist? And is it not a fact, that Israel does not have such a policy? Facts indeed! Debresser (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not a general forum. We discuss only to discuss edit proposals.Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Which is why I stressed that although you are possibly right that he said Israelis instead of Jews, that does not change the fact that the statement is extremely notable and a must have for this article. Debresser (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

He isnt possibly right, he is right. And lol to millions of Arabs, citizens or otherwise. As to the substance, a trivial point, and this article is already overly burdened with these talking points. nableezy - 20:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing trivial about political leader stating that he wants his country to be based on the principles of apartheid/racism. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Jesus christ, he never said anything that can be taken that way. Where does he say he wants his country to be based on the principles of apartheid or racism? nableezy - 23:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The Palestinian position is that a future Palestinian state will not have Israeli military forces or settlements on its territories. There is nothing here more than that. Zerotalk 22:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That would be reasonable. but that is not what he said. See above. Debresser (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The context was that US-sponsored "peace negotations" were just starting in Washington and Abbas was responding to a proposal for a long Israeli military presence In Palestine even after independence. Here is how Haaretz reported it:

Speaking from Cairo where he was meeting with Egypt's interim president Adly Mansour, Abbas said that no Israeli settlers or border forces could remain in a future Palestinian state and that Palestinians deem illegal all Jewish settlement building beyond the Green Line. "In a final solution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli - civilian or soldier - on our lands," Abbas said in a briefing to mostly Egyptian journalists. "An international, multinational presence like in Sinai, Lebanon and Syria - we are with that," he said, referring to United Nations peacekeeping operations in those places. Zerotalk 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

IN that case, problem the original Arabic would have to be checked because in English 'Final Solution' means Endlösung. When I first checked round, versions by more sensitive translations rendered it 'final resolution'. Had he used the standard Arabic term for the extermination of the Jews by Hitler, we would have heard more about it, esp. given his doctoral thesis.Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that and I think it is nothing more than an unfortunate choice of phrase. Zerotalk 11:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It's probably an incompetent translator (excluding for the moment that it might be a malicious redaction to seed precisely this implication - something not rare in this area). One wouldn't know unless this was minutely checked against the Arabic. In any case, on the face of it, this is all piddling. Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I have just modified 3 external links on Mahmoud Abbas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: